CanonFan

NASA folks are very meticulous about making sure that what they spend dollars on will do the intended job. Could be that their criteria aren't the same as the typical consumer or even the Earth-bound professional photographer. When you're spending thousands of dollars per pound to get people and equipment into orbit, the purchase cost of the gear is only one factor in selection.

I guess they asked several companies, compared prices and then stuck with Nikon cuz it was cheapest.Anyway who cares what brand some people in space are using? Does it even matter as long as they get usable photos? Probably the guy who shoots the photos is just a Nikon user anyway thats why he got that camera on board.

"The cameras that come back are evaluated for damage. Depending on the condition the camera may fly again. The space environment (both inside the vehicle and on spacewalks) is tough on the electronic cameras. The radiation damages pixels on the sensor. Sometimes the damage is so great that the camera does not fly again."

It's been many years, but....when Uncle Sam switched the equipment I used to work on from 70mm film to 35mm, modified Nikon bodies were used. They proved to be more reliable when subjected to adverse conditions, primarily shock and vibration. Some of the data to support that undoubtedly came from NASA, but I'm sure tax dollars were spent to confirm it. Then again, we also continued to use Betamax long after it was dead in the civilian market.